On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 09:51:37AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: >... > Heh heh, "at 01:03:31AM +0200" :-) > Let me see if I get your remark... I hope you imply that the only > thought goal was replacing the current apr_pool usage (which is > almost everywhere) with apr_sms.
Huh? We aren't replacing pools with the sms stuff. >... > I thought that pool usage was mandatory and that malloc/free should > never be called directly in apr (except within apr_pool, and now > in apr_sms). Yes, pools are mandatory. We make particular exceptions in a few cases. For those, we always register a cleanup with a pool to do the free(), so effectively, they are "ensured" to go away. >... > Exactly! For starters you won't need to convert the apr_pool code. > Just write the apr_sms_pool first and use it in parallel. When all > original pool usage is removed, the code can be dropped aswell. But this Huh? I don't see us replacing the pool usage at all. Not migration either. I thought the intent was to use this stuff to help out with shared memory? That doesn't equal replacing the pool concept. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
